You are here: / / PERSONAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON REAL PROPERTY SUBJECT TO A TAX FORECLOSURE...
,

PERSONAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON REAL PROPERTY SUBJECT TO A TAX FORECLOSURE WAS NOT ABANDONED BY THE OWNER OF THE PERSONAL PROPERTY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Troutman, reversing Supreme Court, determined respondent’s application to vacate “that portion of a judgment of [tax} foreclosure that deemed respondent’s personal property located at a foreclosed property to be abandoned to petitioner” should have been vacated. The petitioner-city foreclosed on real property which was not owned by the respondent. The respondent owned hundreds of auto parts which were on the foreclosed property:

… [W]e agree with respondent that the court lacked jurisdiction to dispose of personal property. Supreme Court may exercise in rem jurisdiction over real property in a proceeding to foreclose a tax lien (see RPTL 1120 et seq.). A proceeding of that kind “produces a judgment binding only on those who have been named as parties and duly notified—the usual understanding of what due process requires”… . ” [T]he failure to substantially comply with the requirement of providing the taxpayer with proper notice constitutes a jurisdictional defect which operates to invalidate the sale or prevent the passage of title’ “… . Here, petitioner did not provide notice to respondent with respect to respondent’s personal property and could not have done so. The notice procedures in the statute relate to real property only, not personal property (see RPTL 1122-1125). Moreover, RPTL article 11 does not contain a mechanism by which the tax district may obtain a party’s personal property upon that party’s default. In the event of a default, the tax district is awarded “possession of any parcel of real property described in the petition of foreclosure” and is entitled to a deed conveying to the tax district full and complete title to the parcel (RPTL 1136 [3] [emphasis added]). Upon the execution of the deed, any person with a right or interest “in or upon such parcel shall be barred and forever foreclosed” of that right or interest (id. [emphasis added]).

Nothing in RPTL article 11 confers upon Supreme Court in rem jurisdiction over personal property. Matter of The Foreclosure of Tax Liens By Proceeding In Rem Pursuant To Art. 11 of The Real Prop. Tax Law By The City of Utica (Suprunchik), 2019 NY Slip Op 01020, Fourth Dept 2-8-19

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT’S CONVICTIONS RELATING TO THE CODEFENDANT’S POSSESSION AND FIRING OF A WEAPON DURING A ROBBERY AT WHICH DEFENDANT WAS NOT PRESENT WERE BASED UPON LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE; DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION OF POSSESSION OF A WEAPON BASED UPON THE CODEFENDANT’S GETTING INTO DEFENDANT’S CAR WITH THE WEAPON WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).
REFUSING TO SUBMIT TO A DWI BREATH TEST IS NOT AN OFFENSE (FOURTH DEPT).
Father Whose Parental Rights Had Been Terminated Had Standing to Seek Modification or Vacatur of Order of Protection
THE MAJORITY APPLIED THE DISCOVERY STATUTE IN EFFECT AT THE TIME THE ORDER TO TURN OVER THE ROSARIO MATERIAL ONE WEEK BEFORE TRIAL WAS MADE, FINDING THE ORDER PROPER; THE CONCURRENCE AGREED BUT ARGUED THE COURT SHOULD EXPLICITLY RULE THAT THE DISCOVERY STATUTE ENACTED IN 2019 SHOULD ALWAYS BE APPLIED PROSPECTIVELY (FOURTH DEPT).
THE SEVERE EMOTIONAL DISTRESS ELEMENT OF INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS DOES NOT REQUIRE OBJECTIVE MEDICAL EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF SUED THE TOWN ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT; TOWN LAW 65 (3) REQUIRED PLAINTIFF TO FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM WITHIN SIX MONTHS (WHICH PLAINTIFF FAILED TO DO) AND MAKES NO PROVISION FOR FILING A LATE NOTICE; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
The One-Year-and-Ninety-Day Time Limit for Bringing Suit Under the Public Authorities Law Is a Statute of Limitations, Not a Condition Precedent to Suit, and Is Therefore Subject to the Six-Month Extension for Recommencing a Suit Which Was Dismissed Without Prejudice Provided by CPLR 205(a)
IN THIS CAR ACCIDENT CASE, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RELEASE SHE SIGNED WAS THE RESULT OF MUTUAL MISTAKE CONCERNING THE EXTENT OF HER INJURIES (FOURTH DEPT). ​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLAINTIFF’S ACTION WAS NOT FRIVOLOUS WITHIN THE MEANING OF 42 USC 1988,... EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A MOTION TO VACATE A TAX FORECLOSURE JUDGMENT SHOULD...